Well, those are constructive questions. Well done.
1) Both. I had received a complaint about Scherado, but most of all, his constant attacking of Wanbli had gotten ridiculously out of hand. He was banned after he posted a thread dedicated specifically to the purpose of antagonising Wanbli in every subforum, by hand, since he doesn't have magical powers, thank Lina. Basically, if there are enough complaints about someone, they'll be banned. Equally, if someone is the proverbial large, rabid bull to our delicate china shop, they'll be banned. Two of the rules I'm operating with at the moment, in lieu of a ratified constitution, are that personal attacks are disallowed and off-topic posts are disallowed. Both types of post should be reported by people who see them so that I can warn the poster and delete them, if they do indeed appear to be personal or off-topic. Scherado had racked up numerous such warnings, quite a few of his posts having been reported and brought to my attention. Evidently he wasn't being a constructive poster, so he had to be banned. I hope that clarifies the whole process. If you think it would be constructive, I can make all correspondence on the matter public with the permission of those involved, other than the one who was banned.
2. & 3. A foe list only stops the intended recipient from seeing the insult; to everyone else it's clear as day. Hopefully we just don't like to see people insulting people on the forum, full stop, regardless of whether or not it reaches its target. That, and it clutters up threads. The creation of a thread devoted to the purpose of insulting the foe-ing party is out of the question, on the one hand because it's childish and ridiculous and unnecessary, and on the other hand because the intended recipient of the insults can still see the thread, even if they can't see the posts. It's also possible that the insult can be quoted and the target could see it that way. Foe-ing isn't foolproof. There are plenty of good reasons to ban insulting people, the chief one being, I think, that they're not the sort of people we want on the forum. But we'll see if that's the case shortly.
4. You're not painting a very happy picture of the forum, Polli - it sounds less like a forum and more like five or six forums of people who are actually able to see eachother's posts. Basically, you'd end up with a mess of some people being able to see everyone's posts and some people not being able to see some people's posts and other people only being able to see other people's posts and you'd quickly end up with something resembling a farce.
"Well, when did you say that? I've not heard anyone say that."
"I didn't, but if you look a few posts back, x said--"
"Oh, I can't see x's posts."
"Well, x said that."
"Oh, I was wondering what y meant when she said that x was wrong."
"What, what did y say? She's on my foes list."
etc. etc. etc. Very tiresome, very confusing. Better just to keep the place civil by kicking out people who threaten its civility, eh?
5. They would indeed, Polli; but if you really thought something was very useful you could PM it to me and I could make it a global announcement, or give it a thread in the appropriate überforum above. You'd really need to ask Lina about the intended use of the foe list - I don't think it's a very helpful tool, personally. Moderation of disputes should make it redundant, in an ideal world, and it really begins to cloud things up when you don't know who can speak to who.